He suggests that we have rapidly arrived at a tipping point in public opinion, and that it was this, more than internal struggles on gay marriage among its own staff, that led K&S to take the unusual step of backing out of a contract to defend the House of Representatives in a challenge to the constitutionality of one of its own laws, one that the Obama Justice Department decided not to continue defending.
Liptak writes:
For many gay rights activists, the decision amounts to a turning point in the debate -- the moment at which opposition to same-sex marriage came to look like bigotry, similar to racial discrimination and the subordination of women."Of course, here he's attributing the assertion to "gay rights activists," but the the tone of the rest of his article supports that view.
It's important to distinguish the point Liptak is making -- a genuine change in social attitudes akin to changing view of race and gender discrimination, not "caving in to pressure" from important clients and staff and gay activists.
I agree that changing societal attitudes is a strong factor. I think K&S's commitment to diversity and to its own gay staff may have put them a bit ahead of the curve among law firms -- but not far ahead. Liptak also points out that the legal profession as a whole has been a leader in acceptance of equal rights for gays and lesbians.
Another factor that no one else seems to consider: K&S's assessment of whether they could make a plausible defense of a bill that, at least in parts, has been deemed unconstitutional by legal scholars. That was the DoJ's rationale for no longer defending it. Maybe it really boils down to this: K&S did not want to take a case they would lose, perhaps look both naive and bigoted in trying to defend, and at the same time alienate their own staff, some of their clients, and much of society.
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment